| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Fox
Joined: 04 Mar 2009
|
 Posted: Thu Nov 22, 2012 10:02 pm Post subject: |
 |
|
| actionjackson wrote: |
| Perhaps pride got the better of them, and to keep reducing their pay was seen as a slap in the face, I don't know. |
What if it's not about pride, but about simply not being able to support their families on an $11 per hour wage? What are these people supposed to do? Not everyone can have a comfortable white-collar job, it's simply impossible. Either the lowest rungs of our society need to be paid living wages, or they need to be provided for through government programs. There are no other humane alternatives in the long term. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
jvalmer
Joined: 06 Jun 2003
|
| Posted: Thu Nov 22, 2012 10:09 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Fox wrote: |
| What are these people supposed to do? Not everyone can have a comfortable white-collar job, it's simply impossible. Either the lowest rungs of our society need to be paid living wages, or they need to be provided for through government programs. There are no other humane alternatives in the long term. |
Totally agree. And most middle class people aren't that far from becoming poor.
If the working class isn't provide with some form of suitable income, the alternative is a bunch of unemployed men who desperately need to feed their families. I wonder what will happen then... |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
radcon
Joined: 23 May 2011
|
| Posted: Thu Nov 22, 2012 10:13 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| People should not start families unless they are damn well sure that they will be able to provide for their kids. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Fox
Joined: 04 Mar 2009
|
| Posted: Thu Nov 22, 2012 10:23 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| radcon wrote: |
| People should not start families unless they are damn well sure that they will be able to provide for their kids. |
Someone earning over $40,000 a year -- like these people were -- can provide for their kids. You're essentially saying, "Unless you have an absolutely guaranteed, high paying job for life, you ought not to reproduce, ever, under any circumstances." How can that possibly be rational? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
radcon
Joined: 23 May 2011
|
| Posted: Thu Nov 22, 2012 10:50 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Fox wrote: |
| radcon wrote: |
| People should not start families unless they are damn well sure that they will be able to provide for their kids. |
Someone earning over $40,000 a year -- like these people were -- can provide for their kids. You're essentially saying, "Unless you have an absolutely guaranteed, high paying job for life, you ought not to reproduce, ever, under any circumstances." How can that possibly be rational? |
Only a nut would attempt to raise a family of four+ on 40k gross a year in the US. There are a lot of nuts out there. If you want to have a family you shouild to have security first: ample savings, a house paid for, a good job or at least good future prospects. Im not so sure if a baker qualifies as good future prospects. If you live paycheck to paycheck don't have kids. Procreation should not be an inalienable right. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
jvalmer
Joined: 06 Jun 2003
|
| Posted: Thu Nov 22, 2012 10:55 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| radcon wrote: |
| a house paid for |
You do realize in the industrialized world most people under the age of 50 don't have a house paid for. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
radcon
Joined: 23 May 2011
|
| Posted: Thu Nov 22, 2012 11:13 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| jvalmer wrote: |
| radcon wrote: |
| a house paid for |
You do realize in the industrialized world most people under the age of 50 don't have a house paid for. |
Yes I realize that. What I meant to write is that those wanting to have kids should have at least one of the things I listed. If you have a house paid for you might be able to squeak by on 40k a year. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Fox
Joined: 04 Mar 2009
|
| Posted: Thu Nov 22, 2012 11:24 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| radcon wrote: |
| Fox wrote: |
| radcon wrote: |
| People should not start families unless they are damn well sure that they will be able to provide for their kids. |
Someone earning over $40,000 a year -- like these people were -- can provide for their kids. You're essentially saying, "Unless you have an absolutely guaranteed, high paying job for life, you ought not to reproduce, ever, under any circumstances." How can that possibly be rational? |
Only a nut would attempt to raise a family of four+ on 40k gross a year in the US. |
1) Why did you say 4+? What precludes him from having only one child (which is still too much for his new $11 an hour job, but at least possible on his previous $40,000+ a year job)?
2) Why do you assume his wife isn't bringing in supplementary income, perhaps even at the same factory? Or is a couple earning over $80,000 a year suddenly also "nuts?"
| radcon wrote: |
| If you want to have a family you shouild to have security first... |
Almost no one who lives in America has any real long-term security; even owning a house or having savings is insufficient when a single major medical emergency, or even a lost job during an economic crisis you yourself didn't cause, can result in losing everything. Your suggested philosophy would result in fertility rates not merely below replenishment, but nearly at zero. You're literally demanding America commit societal suicide here, all so you can get cheap twinkies.
| radcon wrote: |
| Procreation should not be an inalienable right. |
A society where the overwhelming majority don't procreate is a society which ceases to exist. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
radcon
Joined: 23 May 2011
|
| Posted: Thu Nov 22, 2012 11:40 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Fox wrote: |
| radcon wrote: |
| Fox wrote: |
| radcon wrote: |
| People should not start families unless they are damn well sure that they will be able to provide for their kids. |
Someone earning over $40,000 a year -- like these people were -- can provide for their kids. You're essentially saying, "Unless you have an absolutely guaranteed, high paying job for life, you ought not to reproduce, ever, under any circumstances." How can that possibly be rational? |
Only a nut would attempt to raise a family of four+ on 40k gross a year in the US. |
1) Why did you say 4+? What precludes him from having only one child (which is still too much for his new $11 an hour job, but at least possible on his previous $40,000+ a year job)?
2) Why do you assume his wife isn't bringing in supplementary income, perhaps even at the same factory? Or is a couple earning over $80,000 a year suddenly also "nuts?"
| radcon wrote: |
| If you want to have a family you shouild to have security first... |
Almost no one who lives in America has any real long-term security; even owning a house or having savings is insufficient when a single major medical emergency, or even a lost job during an economic crisis you yourself didn't cause, can result in losing everything. Your suggested philosophy would result in fertility rates not merely below replenishment, but nearly at zero. You're literally demanding America commit societal suicide here, all so you can get cheap twinkies.
| radcon wrote: |
| Procreation should not be an inalienable right. |
A society where the overwhelming majority don't procreate is a society which ceases to exist. |
So be it. Way too many people on earth anyway. I used a family of four as an example because the birth rate is still 2 per woman in the US. My number is 40K. If you want to assume a working wife, kids with paper routes thats fine. A husband and wife baking team under the new contract would be a little over 40K. Nuts to raise a family on that.
And I agree the working man should get paid more, a lot more. But until that happens (if ever) people shouldn't be having kids if they can't support them. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
PRagic
Joined: 24 Feb 2006
|
| Posted: Sat Nov 24, 2012 7:13 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Basically a battle between two unions no matter how they paint it in the press.
But, still, come on. They legalize grass in Washington and THEN say that Twinkies are going off the shelves? I smell a conspiracy here somewhere! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
young_clinton
Joined: 09 Sep 2009
|
| Posted: Mon Nov 26, 2012 8:06 am Post subject: |
|
|
| madoka wrote: |
Contrary to popular belief, Twinkies don't last forever. |
They get hard and unpalatable after being around for a while  I know I've tasted a few hard ones. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
bucheon bum
Joined: 16 Jan 2003
|
| Posted: Mon Nov 26, 2012 9:04 am Post subject: |
|
|
| radcon wrote: |
So be it. Way too many people on earth anyway. I used a family of four as an example because the birth rate is still 2 per woman in the US. My number is 40K. If you want to assume a working wife, kids with paper routes thats fine. A husband and wife baking team under the new contract would be a little over 40K. Nuts to raise a family on that.
|
Depends on where you live. It isn't nuts if you live in a big chunk of the Midwest and South. If you live in a major metro area, then yes, you're right. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
madoka
Joined: 27 Mar 2008
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
12ax7
Joined: 07 Nov 2009
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
